Avery Dennison Asks SCOTUS to Step in on Flip Side of Eligibility Debacle

Avery Dennison Corporation, a manufacturer of radio frequency identification device transponders (RFID), yesterday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on its appeal of its decision upholding ADASA, Inc.’s patent on RFID technology as patent eligible.

To balance competing perspectives, Avery Dennison asked to take up the lawsuit, which he said “demonstrates the depth of the Federal Circuit’s division” and represents the “other side of the coin” in the eligibility debate. I am asking the court.Past and current petitions to courts regarding eligibility have traditionally been uncertain because of the overly narrow view of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) law and its tendency to invalidate patents under Section 101. has focused on gender, but Avery Dennison’s petition argues that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 101 is too broad.

“Balancing the Federal Circuit’s deeply divided views on jurisprudence will facilitate our consideration of these very important issues,” the petition states. “Unless the court completes the equation by allowing plenary review in such cases, courts point only one way toward lowering the thresholds established under section 101 for valid concerns. You run the risk of sending a message that you are

CAFC analysis

In December 2022, the CAFC upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment against ADASA that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,798,967 is patent eligible under §101. The court held that claim 1 is “a serial number data structure designed to enable technical improvements to her RFID commissioning process based on specific hardware.”

Claim 1 is as follows:

1. 1. RFID transponders including:

substrate;

an antenna structure formed on a substrate; and

an RFID integrated circuit chip electrically coupled to the antenna structure;

the RFID integrated circuit chip is encoded with a unique object number, the unique object number comprising an object class information space and a unique serial number space;

where the unique serial number space is encoded with one serial number instance from an assigned block of serial numbers, and the assigned block is assigned a limited number of most significant bits,

Here, the unique serial number space includes a limited number of most significant bits corresponding to the assigned blocks, and the remaining less significant bits, which together form a single serial number instance. Configure.

The panel rejected Avery Dennison’s contention that it merely ascribed meaning mentally to existing data fields, citing previous cases such as: Enfish, LLC vs Microsoft Corp and Uniloc USA, Inc. vs. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.to strengthen its position, argued that these cases held similar claim entitlements.

However, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the claims were valid under Sections 102 and 103 and remanded them for further proceedings.

petition

Avery Dennison’s petition alleges that the CAFC’s ruling “markably deviates” from the Supreme Court’s teaching that “abstract ideas are not patentable.” The allegations at issue blatantly violate this principle of patent law, the petition states. Start with the same short number. According to the complaint, the court erred in finding that the claims were “directed to a specific hardware-based his RFID serial number data structure designed to enable technical improvements to the commissioning process.” committed.

The Federal Circuit has fallen into several well-known traps that have arisen regarding the jurisprudence of eligibility, the petition says. The term “hardware-based” somehow suggests to lower the level of abstraction of the claim. Determine that the technical improvements resulting from the claim make the claim patent eligible. “That reasoning misunderstands the eligibility inquiry,” the petition states. “All inventions to be patented must be ‘useful,’ but not all useful claims are patentable.”

The Federal Circuit’s final underscore is that the Federal Circuit is having trouble enforcing Section 101 law in its entirety.of PersonalWeb Techs. LLC vs. Google LLCFor example, the court stated the exact opposite of the judgment here, concluding that “‘dividing data into a series of bits’ is a ‘clear sign of abstraction’ and is therefore not patentable.” I was. The petition highlights the lack of court uniformity in this area of ​​law. “Taken together, the Federal Circuit’s statement constitutes a ‘unanimous’ and ‘unprecedented petition for guidance,'” the petition states.

Other Eligible Cases

The Supreme Court is now considering petitions for two other eligible cases. Tropp v. Travel Sentry, Inc. and Interactive wearables vs. Polar Electric Oy. The Court sought the Attorney General’s views in both cases. Avery Dennison is asking the court to at least stay the petition pending review of these cases, if the petition is granted.

Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 25120847
Author: Nightmare